- The devious behaviour in of all things a Chartered Accountants' Institute has caused great professional damage, and the expected standard of behaviour is below that expected of any organisation. The report tone doesn't even seem shocked, which undermines its credibility.

- All concerned, through to Management positions that knew and all benefited, need to go to tribunal with a view to removing their CPA title and expelling them. Why aren't they already suspended, and instead are running around the world organising and attending events I'm too repulsed to attend.

- The Singapore AGM move was behaviour that needs to be censured, no rationalised and whitewashed.

- The renumeration is ALL way out of line. Compare it to CIMA (and NOT ICAEW), which has more members

They've got 106K Qualifieds and 281K total members, so size is comparable
Yet the exec pay looks to me to be reasonable for a London based organization.

This compares to CPA where half of this goes to Mr Jeff Hughes alone.

How does Mr Hughes merit A$900K, how does this relate to his previous position (gives a good idea as to his opportunity cost) and he admitted to me at a social, that for positions above A$150K in Australia, there are 80 applicants per job. I'm quite sure we can find great candidates for a snip of the A$900K - and was this job ever advertised, including the salary!!

We can cope with a COO earning $200K, and I don't care what overpayment "Australian Super" is making - btw - this is a good encouragement to "self manage" one's own fund having seen that.

- CPA Advice - showed "good intent" - conclusion on what basis?

- Regarding the mission of expanding membership, agree with other posts about this needing to be a KPI. Is this really what the members want(ed)? By contrast, on more important topics like maintaining Professional Integrity, $29m a year is being spent on "brand, ethics and the professions". What is the record on proactive measures to deal with Members falling short of professional standards?

6.2.2. Regarding the "golden handshake" for the former CEO,
- one cannot accept that this was "to the letter of the law". - This beggars belief given the loss of reputation and damage. Anyone else guilty of gross misconduct should have been fired, and he would not have been successful in getting payment. To the contrary, he should be compensating for overpayment over the years he got by deception, and major damage he has done to the CPA's reputation.

"There is little doubt that the former CEO contributed to the standing of CPA Australia over many years, lifting its profile and growing its membership." How can one possibly conclude his contribution is positive?

7.2 Findings
- Disagree that the Marketing is appropriate. Supporting mass sporting events is grossly wasteful vs objective, and only happened because the members were overcharged, and the cash was there to blow. What on earth were outdoor adverts doing in Manhattan? Very poor targeting, and all about ego.

The board and its Naked CEO (God help us . . . that puerile nom de plume should have rung warning bells!) can't be allowed to just walk away from their appalling behaviour.

This band of self-satisfied dolts spent years using CPA Australia as their own personal cash cow . . . the only way to convince them we are not pleased is by naming, shaming and, if possible, dragging them into court and forcing them to repay their ill-gotten gains.

Not sure this is possible, but I would help fund such a venture. Anyone else interested?